4.1 Article

Resource Availability Versus Resource Extraction in Forests: Analysis of Forest Fodder System in Forest Density Classes in Lower Himalayas, India

期刊

SMALL-SCALE FORESTRY
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 267-279

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11842-013-9253-3

关键词

Forest conservation; Adult cattle unit (ACU); Livestock; Anthropogenic pressure; Community participation

类别

资金

  1. Central Statistical Organisation, New Delhi, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Particularly in developing countries, forests provide feed for livestock in the form of fodder for stall-feeding and grazing in forest areas. Extraction of fodder resources from forests often leads to forest degradation. An attempt has been made to qualify extend of biomass extraction from forests and to compare forest fodder dependence of households in a number of forest density classes in the mountainous region of Himalayas, in Uttarakhand state in India, according to livestock owners' perspectives. Information was obtained from a survey of livestock feed and fodder collection and utilization from 316 randomly selected households distributed across four government-defined forest density classes, namely very dense forest, moderately dense forest, open forest and scrub. Households obtained feed and fodder for livestock from three sources, i.e. forest areas, non-forest areas and local markets. Daily feed consumption per adult cattle unit varied according to source, ranging from 9.85 to 14.70 kg from forest areas, 7.40 to 11.14 kg from non-forest areas, and less than 1 kg from local markets. The dependency of households on fodder for livestock differed significantly between households located in each forest density classes. The current forest fodder extraction rate is likely to be unsustainable. Measures identified to reduce the extraction rate include greater use of alternative fodder sources and managing small patches of the natural forests adjoining dependent villages for fodder production through community participation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据